On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 11:06 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:> Alok Kataria wrote:> > Its not a user who has to do anything special here.> > There are *intelligent* VM developers out there who can export a> > different CPUid interface depending on the guest OS type. And this is> > what most of the hypervisors do (not necessarily for CPUID, but for> > other things right now).> >> > No, that's always a terrible idea. Sure, its necessary to deal with> some backward-compatibility issues, but we should even consider a new> interface which assumes this kind of thing. We want properly enumerable> interfaces.

The reason we still have to do this is because, Microsoft has alreadydefined a CPUID format which is way different than what you or I areproposing ( with the current case of 256 leafs being available). And Idoubt they would change the way they deal with it on their OS. Any proposal that we go with, we will have to export different CPUIDinterface from the hypervisor for the 2 OS in question.

So i think this is something that we anyways will have to do and notworth binging about in the discussion.